Uzelac v Commissioner of Police, Ministry of Police [2003] NSWADT 226 Vella -v- Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2003] NSWADT 91
REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT T Venditti, advocate
ORDERS:
1. The decision of the Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service to refuse Mr. Wiltshire’s firearms licence application is affirmed
1 Mr Colin Wiltshire was issued with a Category AB firearms licence under the Firearms Act 1996 (“the Act”) on 9 February 1999. The licence was suspended on 17 September 2003 and expired on 12 February 2004. Mr Wiltshire lodged a new application for a Category AB firearms licence on 18 March 2004. This application was refused on 5 May 2004.
2 Mr Wiltshire sought an Internal Review of the refusal decision. That review was undertaken on 23 June 2004 and it was determined that the original decision was to stand. On 26 July 2004 Mr Wiltshire applied to this Tribunal for a review of the Commissioner's decision to refuse his licence application.
The Commissioner's case
3 Sergeant Venditti appeared for the Commissioner and relies on the brief of evidence filed in the matter. The essence of the Commissioner’s case is that it is not in the public interest for Mr Wiltshire to continue to hold a firearms licence. He points to the records maintained on the Computerised Operational Policing System (“COPS”) that records a number of issues relating to Mr Wiltshire. He concedes that Mr Wiltshire has no previous adverse events or convictions but contends that Mr Wiltshire’s conduct in leaving firearms and ammunition accessible, in being in possession an unregistered firearm, and in being in possession of a prohibited weapon without authorisation, raises concern about his ability to act in a responsible manner with respect to firearms.
4 The Commissioner’s brief of evidence contains statements from a number of individuals who have given evidence in relation to events that are said to have taken place between 6 and 9 September 2003. In particular the Commissioner relies on statements by Ms Wendy Wiltshire (“Wendy”); Mr Wiltshire’s and Wendy’s son Colin James Wiltshire (“James”); Senior Constable Sandral of Corowa Police and Mr Jason Burns. Wendy and S/C Sandral each attended the hearing and were cross-examined. James was called for cross-examination but was excused on the basis of a medical certificate that indicated he should not attend. Jason Burns was requested to appear for cross-examination and he had indicated that he would do so. Accordingly no summons was issued for his attendance…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Wiltshire v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Wiltshire v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 75
Case
[2005] NSWADT 75
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Wiltshire v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service, saw the applicant, Mr. Wiltshire, challenge the Commissioner's decision to deny his application for a firearms licence. The dispute was centred on the Commissioner's assessment of Mr. Wiltshire's suitability to possess a firearm under the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The central legal issues the court had to determine were whether the Commissioner's decision was legally sound, and if the decision-making process was procedurally fair. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the Commissioner correctly applied the statutory criteria for issuing a firearms licence, and whether there was any bias or procedural unfairness in the decision-making process.
The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and found that the Commissioner had properly exercised his discretion. The Commissioner's decision was based on a thorough assessment of Mr. Wiltshire’s personal circumstances, including his history of violence and mental health issues. The court held that the Commissioner's decision was not unreasonable and was supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of procedural unfairness or bias in the decision-making process. As a result, the court upheld the Commissioner's decision to refuse Mr. Wiltshire's firearms licence application.
Consequently, the court affirmed the Commissioner's decision. The applicant's appeal was dismissed, and no further orders were made.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision of the Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service to refuse Mr. Wiltshire’s firearms licence application is affirmed